User talk:Rugedraw

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ford Power-Up version history. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? I am not sure who you are or what your scope of knowledge is on this particular subject, but everything I added is a legit software update that has been received by me in my personal vehicle. I actually came back now to add another OTA that has recently been sent out to truck to find out that everything I added has been deleted. I have been maintaining the Power-Up revision page for months. I have access to Ford's Professional Technician System software and have been helping the online community with OTA issues for months. Maybe instead of blindly deleting everything I did, you could have performed a quick google search to verify the information I added is legit. Rugedraw (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't add promotional garbage like-

Ford Power-Up To help alleviate overheating, we’ve made an update to improve your heated mirrors for optimal temperature. Ford Power-Up software updates like this help us make improvements without the inconvenience of asking you to leave home. At Ford we value your satisfaction, and we respect your time.

-to Wikipedia and if you do so again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not "promotional garbage" as you eloquently put it. That is the exact message that pops up on the touchscreen when the update goes through and the end user is provided a description of what the update does. Moreover, that is the exact description that pop's up on Ford's dealer software when a service advisor checks the OTA status of an owner's vehicle. I have attached a pic for your reference. I literally copied and pasted this directly from Ford's website. I was not allowed to upload a screenshot, so my apologies for the blurry pic, but if you zoom in to the pop-up box in the middle, you can see word-for-word that it matches what I posted on the page. Also attached is another picture from an F150 forum where a member is asking me if I planned on updating the wiki page with all the new software updates and me responding to him that I intended to do so.

There is nothing even remotely close to "vandalism" about what I added. If you want me to trim down the wording to exclude the extra verbiage that Ford provides to their customer base, I can. But I have spent months and months of my personal time getting this particular wiki page corrected with all the erroneous data that has been put there. The day I decide to create an account as opposed to just making changes without an account, I get all my work unjustly unpublished and threatened to be blocked. I am probably the only person maintaining that page that has actual first hand knowledge of the subject. So if you can revert what you reverted, it would be greatly appreciated not only by myself, but by the vast online community that refers to this page when it comes to this subject matter. Rugedraw (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what you said about copying the material from Ford's website, I've now had to delete your edits (the content you added will not be visible in the history) because of copyright violation. Also, I've now looked at the table, and there are other entries similar to yours (using Ford's promotional language and probably copyright violations as well). I haven't decided what I'm going to do to clean up the article to comply with Wikipedia policies. That'll require some thought. In the meantime, my warning to you stands and is now heightened by the copyright violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Perhaps I am somewhat at fault here because I obviously do not know what constitutes a violation of wiki policies and what is allowed. However, everything in that page is taken directly from Ford's website or Ford's disclaimers. The difference is, other people that have updated the page seemed to have excluded those words and I am guessing that is why they are in compliance. Maybe if I use the verbiage provided by Ford to the NHTSA when these updates are reported instead of using the words from Ford might appease to whatever rules wiki has in place.

I can add the updates to the page again and exclude anything that might infringe on copyright laws. I understand you have a job to do and I would like to continue to contribute to the page in a way that is in accordance with the rules.

Instead of: Ford Power-Up To help alleviate overheating, we’ve made an update to improve your heated mirrors for optimal temperature. Ford Power-Up software updates like this help us make improvements without the inconvenience of asking you to leave home. At Ford we value your satisfaction, and we respect your time.

I can just write: Ford Power-Up To help alleviate overheating, we’ve made an update to improve your heated mirrors for optimal temperature.

Or, should I just reword it entirely using my own words? What would be the way to do it while being in compliance? Rugedraw (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first option is no good. We can't use language like "we've"; Wikipedia is not an advertising platform for Ford's products. All you need are the facts of what has been updated in very neutral language. You also need a source. Wikipedia insists on sources. If you have questions on how to do any of this, you can ask them at the WP:Teahouse. Editing at Wikipedia is not easy for new editors unless you're making very tiny changes, e.g., correcting a misspelling.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will reassess my strategy. Seems like using my own words is the way to go. The thing is, I am the source of the info so I am not sure how to overcome that part of it. I guess I can cite the forum as the source even though I am the one reporting to the forum. Or the NHTSA report.

Thanks for your insight; this convo gave me a better perspective now towards the end about where you are coming from. Pardon me if I came across harshly at first. Your initial explanation as to why my content was removed came across a bit offensive when I read it. For what it is worth, everything I added was done so with accuracy and proper research and was posted solely with the intention of putting accurate info on there. Rugedraw (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I literally copied and pasted this directly from Ford's website. I'm a bit confused. Did you copy the text from a Ford website or a forum about Ford? There's a difference. The forum is wholly unreliable, whereas the Ford website, albeit WP:PRIMARY, for this purpose is probably more acceptable. This question may become moot in the next week, though, as someone has nominated the article for deletion, and if the community consensus is to delete, the article will no longer exist.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Directly from the Ford website. If you take a second look at the picture I sent earlier, that is from Ford's dealer software verifying the update I was adding to the wiki page installed on a vehicle with date stamps and all.

The article was nominated for deletion because I followed your advice and went into the tearoom to get help on how to list sources for the additions I was trying to make. Upon doing so, it drew the eyes of someone who went into the page and saw many sources cited were coming from forums. The tricky part that I cannot site the Ford technician website as a source, because any link I posted requires a user name/password to view it and the only way to get that is if you're a Ford employee or pay Ford for the access. I am trying to plead my case in the deletion page created for the page, but it is not going very well. Rugedraw (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was told I am original research and don't count as a source. I was also told primary doesn't suffice as there needs to be verifiability with 2nd party sources. It looks like all I did was drive more nails into the coffin by trying to do the right thing. Rugedraw (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. At this point, I think I will digress. I believe I have bitten off more than I can chew and anything I say is only making things worse for me and my cause. Rugedraw (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]